3 ms·

It is a reply. I am not responsible for checking the locality of an IP address. Indeed, I can never do so with one hundred per cent accuracy. It is Not My Pr

It is a reply. I am not responsible for checking the locality of an IP address. Indeed, I can never do so with one hundred per cent accuracy. It is Not My Problem. Governments that expect some content or other blocked can damn well do it themselves, in their own legal system. They cannot compel someone else to spend his time, talent, or treasure to enforce their petty rules. If they go after one of their own for requesting something from me, whatever. If they block me, whatever. I suppose they're within their rights to do that. The federal government "deputizing" or trying to chill private actors out of speech, out of doing business, etc. is a violation of Americans' first amendment rights; so held SCOTUS last year. No way in h--- are we letting some tinpot foreigner do so.

refulgentis 1y ago
“ Governments that expect some content or other blocked can damn well do it themselves, in their own legal system” What you are describing is exactly what is going on here. OFCAM’s final action, if taken, is blocking at ISP level. All of the legal stuff is happening in the UK system. I’m just sort of curious for your thoughts after learning that. (Also, I’m curious about the SCOTUS decision, I.e. which one? I used to be a law nerd and got a kick out of reading oral arguments for the first time in years this week, would appreciate more material)
- landl0rd 1y ago
  No, it's also able to do things like issue fines, which they have, although American law is not amenable to actually collecting those if their assets are all here. I don't really care if british choose to block something on british soil. Murthy v. Missouri was generally a loss; 6-3 with Justice Barrett for the majority ruling states lacked standing, which is consistent with the Roberts court's informal policy of dodging. Alito dissented, joined by Thomas and I think Gorsuch, and that is worth a read. The more important one was NRA v. Vullo, a unanimous opinion from Sotomayor. Gorsuch wrote a concurrence as did I believe one other justice.
  - mbac32768 1y ago
    The remarkable thing about Murthy is it was bipartisan, with the 3 dissenters being conservative.
gpm 1y ago
It is a reply... that you chose to send despite being fully aware that by doing so you might be reaching out across borders because that's how the internet and your contracts with your service providers works. Governments can do whatever they damn well please in their own territory. Including arresting you if you ever visit because you violated some law that they wrote that applies to people in the rest of the world, or even you violated some law that a friend of theirs (i.e. a country with an extradition treaty) wrote to apply to people in the rest of the world. If those actions compel people to spend their time, talent, or treasure to enforce their petty rules then they can do that. Whatever "actively reaching out" standard you are imagining doesn't exist in the first place. Even if it did though, you clearly violated it when you sent the reply to the request actively aware that it could go across borders. SCOTUS (with an emphasis on the US) decisions seem rather irrelevant to non-US actors.
- Hizonner 1y ago
  The US will enforce most UK court judgements. I'm not sure how administrative fines work; there might be a need to involve a court first, but once that's done the US will [on edit- may] enforce them. The US will not enforce UK judgements or fines if enforcing them is contrary to the US' own laws, including its Constitution. SCOTUS ultimately decides when that's the case. So it's really, really relevant to whether a non-US actor like Ofcom can actually collect fines from people inside the US. That's a separate question from what the UK government can do to people from the US who actually enter the UK, and an important one.
  - gpm 1y ago
    Sure... I think it's pretty much a given that Ofcom expects the US won't help them enforce this law given the 1st amendment. That doesn't mean they won't/shouldn't do their best to do so by themselves..
    - hunterpayne 1y ago
      [flagged]
    - 1y ago
charcircuit 1y ago
You can't but ISPs could if they wanted to. Someone knows the billing or contact information of the person originating the packets.

refulgentis 1y ago

“ Governments that expect some content or other blocked can damn well do it themselves, in their own legal system” What you are describing is exactly what is going on here. OFCAM’s final action, if taken, is blocking at ISP level. All of the legal stuff is happening in the UK system. I’m just sort of curious for your thoughts after learning that. (Also, I’m curious about the SCOTUS decision, I.e. which one? I used to be a law nerd and got a kick out of reading oral arguments for the first time in years this week, would appreciate more material)

landl0rd 1y ago
No, it's also able to do things like issue fines, which they have, although American law is not amenable to actually collecting those if their assets are all here. I don't really care if british choose to block something on british soil. Murthy v. Missouri was generally a loss; 6-3 with Justice Barrett for the majority ruling states lacked standing, which is consistent with the Roberts court's informal policy of dodging. Alito dissented, joined by Thomas and I think Gorsuch, and that is worth a read. The more important one was NRA v. Vullo, a unanimous opinion from Sotomayor. Gorsuch wrote a concurrence as did I believe one other justice.
- mbac32768 1y ago
  The remarkable thing about Murthy is it was bipartisan, with the 3 dissenters being conservative.

gpm 1y ago

It is a reply... that you chose to send despite being fully aware that by doing so you might be reaching out across borders because that's how the internet and your contracts with your service providers works. Governments can do whatever they damn well please in their own territory. Including arresting you if you ever visit because you violated some law that they wrote that applies to people in the rest of the world, or even you violated some law that a friend of theirs (i.e. a country with an extradition treaty) wrote to apply to people in the rest of the world. If those actions compel people to spend their time, talent, or treasure to enforce their petty rules then they can do that. Whatever "actively reaching out" standard you are imagining doesn't exist in the first place. Even if it did though, you clearly violated it when you sent the reply to the request actively aware that it could go across borders. SCOTUS (with an emphasis on the US) decisions seem rather irrelevant to non-US actors.

Hizonner 1y ago
The US will enforce most UK court judgements. I'm not sure how administrative fines work; there might be a need to involve a court first, but once that's done the US will [on edit- may] enforce them. The US will not enforce UK judgements or fines if enforcing them is contrary to the US' own laws, including its Constitution. SCOTUS ultimately decides when that's the case. So it's really, really relevant to whether a non-US actor like Ofcom can actually collect fines from people inside the US. That's a separate question from what the UK government can do to people from the US who actually enter the UK, and an important one.
- gpm 1y ago
  Sure... I think it's pretty much a given that Ofcom expects the US won't help them enforce this law given the 1st amendment. That doesn't mean they won't/shouldn't do their best to do so by themselves..
  - hunterpayne 1y ago
    [flagged]
  - 1y ago

charcircuit 1y ago

You can't but ISPs could if they wanted to. Someone knows the billing or contact information of the person originating the packets.